From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 00:33:11 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:33:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <026a01d203e8$6c955e30$45c01a90$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:35 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
On Aug 31, 2016 2:10 PM, "spike" > wrote:
> Recall that not everyone believes that Mrs. Clinton?s rivals will use nukes. I don?t think that is a big risk. Yes I know what he said. But I don?t think he will do that, once he sees the alternatives, some of which are even scarier in some ways, but can be done quietly under the radar, since it doesn?t create a mushroom cloud and doesn?t run the risk of triggering a nuclear war.
Trump has made it clear he doesn't care about that. "Quietly under the radar" is the opposite of what he wants?
Ja, my argument is not that Trump is acceptable, nor that Clinton is acceptable. I don?t accept the notion that choosing between a criminal and a crazy is all we have, because alternatives cannot win, because they have no press coverage, and have no press coverage because they cannot win.
My contention is that if either of the front runners win, the result will be bad.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. This does not look to me like the face of a person who fears government. It looks to me like a face of one with contempt for law.
Trump has demonstrated contempt for law by what he has said. Clinton has demonstrated contempt for law by what she has done.
Meanwhile Johnson tells us the truth: a US president is not a king nor an emperor:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/31/neither-dictator-nor-king
They are not there to do good deeds or run family charities on the side. That isn?t what US presidents do. Our system is broken. We must fix it.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5553 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 00:48:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:48:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <028001d203ea$8d53b6b0$a7fb2410$@att.net>
>? On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
On Aug 31, 2016, at 1:55 PM, spike > wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:14 PM, spike > wrote:
?> >>?>?John, the problem with these lines of argument is that it tends towards ends-justify-the-means in government which is dangerous?
?>>>?Sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. If the ends never justify the means ?then nobody would ever do anything because there would be no way to do it?
>>?Oh my, John, I disagree with that comment so very much. The end does not justify the means if the means are illegal.
>?Whoa! So, since it was illegal to escape from, say, East Germany during the Cold War, escaping was wrong because illegal means can't be justified by the end of obtaining freedom?...Regards, Dan
Dan if one is working in government, then one must obey the laws of that government. Otherwise nothing that person does or pretends to do is of any value.
In the case in question, one who runs a family charity is running for an office in which that cannot be done. So it effectively removes a person doing charity from good works, which is negative good work, which is bad work, and is a bad deed.
To legitimately hold office, one would need to remove one?s name from the charity. Without the Clinton name on that foundation, no one will give to it. Without Clinton?s eligibility for high office, no one would have paid her all that money for speeches either, any more than anyone read her books. The big money for speeches (from universities (which have far bigger needs than a speech)) have the appearance of a pay-to-play. The donations to the Clinton foundation have the appearance of pay to play. The deletion of email already under subpoena demonstrates contempt for law and the appearance of impropriety. The arrangement in Clinton?s personal assistant?s employment was outright contract fraud, and is not even ambiguous.
Regarding ends-justify-the-means arguments, those lead to situations like those carried out by the German government on 30 June 1934. The means were illegal but the ends were thought to be good at the time: ridding the world of those who would oppose the Nazis. Extrajudicial executions were OK if the slain were bad guys. End result: the need to escape that you mentioned as an example.
Any end-justifies-the-means attitude anywhere in government is dangerous.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 02:50:07 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:50:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:55 PM, spike wrote:
> ?>?Sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. If the
>> ends never justify the means ?then nobody would ever do anything because
>> there would be no way to do it?
>
>
>
> > Oh my, John, I disagree with that comment so very much. he end does not
> justify the means if the means are illegal.
>
?We don't really have much of a disagreement here, it's just that I don't
like the phrase the end doesn't justify the means
> ?> ?
> who attacked the US embassy in Libya for instance, and why.
>
?ISIS attacked and they did for the same reason that most atrocities are
committed, they did it for god. ?
> ?>?
> There are standards in place, legal safeguards, so that a top brass-hat at
> the Pentagon can?t just hire his favorite secretary and make her a .
>
>
?
What standards? If I'm
?
her boss and think she has great ability then I'll promote her. Abedin
?
was Hillary's
?
deputy chief of staff
?
and then her status was changed to
?special government employee?
?
which was perfectly legal and it allowed her to also work for the
?
Clinton Foundation
?
. Where is the substance to all this?
There are standards in place, legal safeguards, so that a top brass-hat at
> the Pentagon can?t just hire his favorite secretary and make her a GS12.
A GS12
? makes about $61,000 a year, seems pretty modest to me for a ?
deputy chief of staff
? for the Secretary of State?,
Abedin
?
probably could have make 10 times
?as much?
in
?a?
?business
? job.?
?> ?
> Her arrangement with Ms. Abedin is fire. It is contract fraud.
?What fraud? No doubt the people at Fox News and
Breitbart
? have invented some wonderful ?conspiracy theories, but the law deals in
facts and so do I.
> ?> ?
> But not contract fraud. It doesn?t even apply to Trump for he has never
> held an elected office nor any government position.
>
Speaking of Trump, why are his business interests so shrouded in secrecy?
why doesn't he want us to see his tax records? Donald says he won't put his
business empire in a blind trust
?if he wins ?
but instead will let his wife and kids run it
?. Makes any conflict interest Hillary may have seem pretty trivial. ?
>
> ?>?they all accept campaign contributions?
>
>
> > But they don?t sell government favors for them.
>
?And neither did Hillary. ?
?I do admit however that one very sleazy character did donate to the
Clinton Foundation, in 2009 he gave $100,000 and his name was Donald
Trump. ?
?>?
>> >?Contributions to the Clinton foundation help millions of people but
>> ?Hillary doesn't get a nickel of the money?
>
>
> ?> ?
> I see. Can you prove that?
>
?Hillary shouldn't have to prove her innocence, but never mind it doesn't
matter because yes I can prove it. Outside audits of the Clinton Foundation
from 1998 through 2014 are online, and the IRS tax forms are available too,
look for yourself:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-report ?
?And if that's not good enough you can see Hillary's personal tax returns
and that of her husband going all the way back to 1977, see for yourself:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/ ?
And you can also find the tax returns of Tim Kaine, her VP running mate. By
the way, do you know where I can find Trump's tax returns? I've been trying
to find them for some time but even mighty Google can't help me for some
reason. It's almost as if somebody had something to hide.
?> ?
> Having a family charity puts the burden on the recipient of contributions
> to prove there is no connection between the charity and government access,
> no connection of any kind between anything in the family charity and the
> candidate
?There is no law that I've heard of that demands such a thing. And why
didn't anybody make a big deal about the Bush family charity, the Points of
Light foundation, during not one but 2 ?presidential administration?
> ?>>?
>>
>> ?I ?
>> disagree, I believe it has everything to do with her opponent, you should
>> always vote for the least bad person who has a chance to win?
>
>
> > Ja, but how do we define the term ?bad? please?
?I'll give you something far better than a definition, I'll give you
examples. having a administrator assistant whose husband likes to put
pictures of his penis
on Facebook is bad, starting a conventional war in Iraq is very bad, and
starting a nuclear war is apocalyptically
?bad?
> ?> ?
> Illegal is bad.
?Yes.?
> ?> ?
> Crazy is a different kind of bad.
?Yes it's a different kind of bad. If you're the guy who can tell
the captain of a Trident Nuclear Submarine what to do then craze is
*INFINITY* worse than illegal, and so is stupid. ?
> >
>> ?>?
>> As I have said it is infinitely (and I don't use that word lightly) more
>> important to avoid a apocalyptically bad president than it is to elect a
>> great one?.
>
> ? ?
> ?> ?
> But not a criminal.
?It's true that being insane is not a crime and neither is being an
imbecile, but* WHO CARES*? ?
> ?> ?
> Recall that not everyone believes that Mrs. Clinton?s rivals will use
> nukes. I don?t think that is a big risk. Yes I know what he said. But I
> don?t think he will do that, once he sees the alternatives,
Are ?you really willing to bet your life and the life of everyone ?
?you know on your hunch ?that Donald Trump is not as crazy and not as
stupid as he appears to be? My hunch is that if he had to choose between
looking foolish and destroying the world Donald would destroy the world.
> ?> ?
> The notion of voting for a criminal in order to escape the risk of nuclear
> weapons being used is illegitimate.
?Avoiding a nuclear war isn't a strong enough intensive?! ?
> ?> ?
> We should be working to take the nuclear football away from the president.
?
Spike, there is precisely a 0% chance of the president losing his control
of the nuclear football in the next 338
?7?
hours. Like it or not we must deal with the world that is not the world we
might want
?;?
and if he wins then
?as certain as day follows night ?
in 141 days Donald (who thinks he knows more about military strategy than
any General)
?will ?
get to play with the football instead of his Twitter account.
>
>> ?> ?
>> ?The charges brought against the two are grotesquely ridiculously
>> unsymmetrical?
>
>
?> ?
> It isn?t that serious a charge really. Fraud conviction, 1 to 5 in the
> big house,
>
?Is ordering somebody to murder a child because you don't like their father
a serious charge? How about torturing for fun?
?>
> Those criticisms aren?t much about which one will make a better president
>
> ?Then what's the point of them? All I'm interest is finding which one
would be a dreadful president and ?and quite possibly the last president so
I can vote for the other one.
> ?>?
> The rest is irrelevant. If the candidate is a criminal, we can?t elect,
> regardless of how bad is her opponent.
>
> ?Why can't we? I can find no evidence that Hillary has violated any law
and apparently no prosecutor can either, but I don't give a damn even if
she's a criminal because in the bad president game crazy and stupid
outranks illegal, and Donald is both and Hillary is neither.
I said months ago that I just didn't get it and I still don't
?.?
Trump
?
is anti-science
?
anti-free market anti-free speech
?and ?
anti-encryption, Trump is
?
far more secretive than Hillary and will have vastly more conflicts of
interest than Hillary ever could
?.
And he's as dumb as a sack of rocks. In short Trump stands for everything
that Extropianism
?
doesn't, and
?
yet it's Hillary the list really hates not Donald. I don't get it.
? ?
John K Clark
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 03:56:03 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:56:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
>?A GS12 makes about $61,000 a year, seems pretty modest to me for a ?
deputy chief of staff for the Secretary of State?
Ja, so how did Abedin go from there to 135k, while on salary to the Clinton Foundation and Doug Band?s Teneo Corporation? What exactly was she doing for all that and during that time? The contract signed when she went into that arrangement should be very informative.
Abedin might have been legal had she given up her position at the State Department, but that would cause her to lose her clearances. Can?t have that.
For Abedin to retain a salary of 135k at State requires a contract, which requires a careful documentation of what Abedin is actually doing for that sum. For something that looks as suspicious as this arrangement, you need an army of contracts inspectors and an audit team, then a second army of inspectors and auditors to watch the first army, then a few independent inspectors to watch all of them.
There?s a reason why this kind thing shown below doesn?t happen:
If an auditor finds Miss Buxley making a salary equal to or higher than General Halftrack?s, for starters, Halftrack?s career is finished (or whoever signed off on the arrangement and Halftrack can prove he didn?t know.) Then if it is found he did know and did not document the arrangement, he will be serving time in the brig. Contract fraud is taken very seriously in government.
In 2012, Abedin was being paid higher than a Brigadier General. OK then, show us the contract. Who signed off on that? Is that person busy for the next 1 to 5 years?
?>>? ?Her arrangement with Ms. Abedin is fire. It is contract fraud.
?>?What fraud?
In government, one cannot just pick someone, make them an assistant and pay her whatever they want with our money. There is a process in place to prevent situations like Halftrack would be in if his secretary is discovered to be making 135k with no clear description of her duties and no contracts inspection procedure in place. To not have all that is contract fraud. It is not as serious as leaking classified information of course, but it is a crime.
You mentioned you hadn?t heard of Huma Abedin before a few weeks ago. Don?t worry, you will.
?>?It's true that being insane is not a crime and neither is being an imbecile, but WHO CARES? ?
I cares.
What difference at this point does it make?
?>?And he's as dumb as a sack of rocks. In short Trump stands for everything that Extropianism doesn't, and yet it's Hillary the list really hates not Donald. I don't get it. John K Clark
Eh, it isn?t that the list hates either of them really. It hates power-grabbing crazies and power-grabbing criminals in high offices. So don?t vote for them.
It makes a difference. Governments must follow their own laws. Governments must fear the people they are elected to serve. The people must not fear the people they elected to serve. Otherwise we have a nuclear-armed banana republic.
Hear the footsteps.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23010 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From gjlewis37 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 09:42:11 2016
From: gjlewis37 at gmail.com (Gregory Lewis)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:42:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
Message-ID:
I repeat the remarks by others I'd prefer this list not be infected by too
much discussion on current affairs, and I'd prefer a higher level of
discussion than 'Trump is a crazy with a potential finger on the big red
button'/'Clinton is corrupt!'
I think one of the important things with charity is to evaluate the likely
output (c.f. Effective Altruism etc.) and on this the Clinton Foundation is
pretty opaque.
A (critical, albeit as far as I can tell fairly well-reasoned) take is via
Nathan Robinson here:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-tha
Gregory Lewis
Public Health Registrar, East of England
Mob: 07874 919786
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM, spike wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
>
>
>
> >?A GS12 makes about $61,000 a year, seems pretty modest to me for a ?
>
> deputy chief of staff for the Secretary of State?
>
>
>
> Ja, so how did Abedin go from there to 135k, while on salary to the
> Clinton Foundation and Doug Band?s Teneo Corporation? What exactly was she
> doing for all that and during that time? The contract signed when she went
> into that arrangement should be very informative.
>
>
>
> Abedin might have been legal had she given up her position at the State
> Department, but that would cause her to lose her clearances. Can?t have
> that.
>
>
>
> For Abedin to retain a salary of 135k at State requires a contract, which
> requires a careful documentation of what Abedin is actually doing for that
> sum. For something that looks as suspicious as this arrangement, you need
> an army of contracts inspectors and an audit team, then a second army of
> inspectors and auditors to watch the first army, then a few independent
> inspectors to watch all of them.
>
>
>
> There?s a reason why this kind thing shown below doesn?t happen:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If an auditor finds Miss Buxley making a salary equal to or higher than
> General Halftrack?s, for starters, Halftrack?s career is finished (or
> whoever signed off on the arrangement and Halftrack can prove he didn?t
> know.) Then if it is found he did know and did not document the
> arrangement, he will be serving time in the brig. Contract fraud is taken
> very seriously in government.
>
>
>
> In 2012, Abedin was being paid higher than a Brigadier General. OK then,
> show us the contract. Who signed off on that? Is that person busy for the
> next 1 to 5 years?
>
>
>
>
>
> ?>>? ?Her arrangement with Ms. Abedin is fire. It is contract fraud.
>
>
>
> ?>?What fraud?
>
>
>
> In government, one cannot just pick someone, make them an assistant and
> pay her whatever they want with our money. There is a process in place to
> prevent situations like Halftrack would be in if his secretary is
> discovered to be making 135k with no clear description of her duties and no
> contracts inspection procedure in place. To not have all that is contract
> fraud. It is not as serious as leaking classified information of course,
> but it is a crime.
>
>
>
> You mentioned you hadn?t heard of Huma Abedin before a few weeks ago.
> Don?t worry, you will.
>
>
>
>
>
> ?>?It's true that being insane is not a crime and neither is being an
> imbecile, but* WHO CARES*? ?
>
>
>
> I cares.
>
>
>
> What difference at this point does it make?
>
>
>
> ?>?And he's as dumb as a sack of rocks. In short Trump stands for
> everything that Extropianism doesn't, and yet it's Hillary the list really
> hates not Donald. I don't get it. John K Clark
>
>
>
> Eh, it isn?t that the list hates either of them really. It hates
> power-grabbing crazies and power-grabbing criminals in high offices. So
> don?t vote for them.
>
>
>
> It makes a difference. Governments must follow their own laws.
> Governments must fear the people they are elected to serve. The people
> must not fear the people they elected to serve. Otherwise we have a
> nuclear-armed banana republic.
>
>
>
> Hear the footsteps.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23010 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 12:20:13 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:20:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nothing to worry about?
In-Reply-To:
References: <45DDA68C-EFA0-46C7-A90A-42CB3CCE5F00@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM, BillK wrote:
PERC appears to be linked to the Koch brothers.
>
> ### If it's linked to the Koch brothers, I am ready to trust them.
Koch brothers are true American heroes, who rose against the Behemoth and
gave it poke in the eye, earning themselves the undying hatred of leftoids
everywhere.
Hail the Koch brothers!
Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 13:13:11 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 06:13:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,
700-million-year-old microbial structures
Message-ID: <9769082A-1CFB-402E-A06F-FE2229006760@gmail.com>
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19355.html
I know it's behind a paywall.
Anyhow, I wonder if a more active search under the ice wouldn't yield these kinds of finds faster.
Regards,
Dan
Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 14:18:45 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:18:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Gregory Lewis wrote:
?> ?
> I repeat the remarks by others I'd prefer this list not be infected by too
> much discussion on current affairs, and I'd prefer a higher level of
> discussion than 'Trump is a crazy with a potential finger on the big red
> button'/'Clinton is corrupt!'
>
Sometimes it's necessary to talk about unpleasant things and yes I agree a
nuclear fireball would be unpleasant; but discussions about the Singularity
are on topic and AI and Nanotechnology aren't the only things that can
cause a Singularity, an H-bomb can too. Any sort of Singularity would be
important and that is also why I get impatient when people talk about
trivialities like the pay grade of assistants.
?The presidency is a high pressure job and to me Trump looks like a mental
breakdown waiting to happen. The current Governor of Main seems to be
undergoing some sort of mental breakdown right now, imagine if he were
the president and had the nuclear launch codes. ?
?> ?
> I think one of the important things with charity is to evaluate the likely
> output (c.f. Effective Altruism etc.) and on this the Clinton Foundation is
> pretty opaque.
>
?This is a great example of what I'm talking about. Spike can't understand
why I say the list hates Hillary not Donald, but outside audits of the
Clinton Foundation are online going back to 1999 and her personal tax
records are online going back to 1977. In contrast Donald won't let us see
his tax records and his business relationships are a confusing tangled mess
that he makes no effort to untangle for us. And yet it's Clinton who is
opaque not Trump. The list prefers the anti-scientific anti-free market
anti-free speech anti-encryption candidate who won't put his business
empire in a blind trust if he becomes president.
It's simply not the case that the list dislikes both of them equally and I
am honestly confused as to why. I have been asking for months for somebody
to give me a clear logical explanation for this very strange phenomenon but
so far no luck. I don't get it.
John K Clark ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 14:35:04 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:35:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
Message-ID: <009101d2045e$085c4f70$1914ee50$@att.net>
>? On Behalf Of Gregory Lewis
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
>?I repeat the remarks by others I'd prefer this list not be infected by too much discussion on current affairs, and I'd prefer a higher level of discussion than 'Trump is a crazy with a potential finger on the big red button'/'Clinton is corrupt!'
Criticism accept, and I will struggle to refrain henceforth, keep the level of discussion at 30k ft, meta rather than micro.
>?I think one of the important things with charity is to evaluate the likely output (c.f. Effective Altruism etc.) and on this the Clinton Foundation is pretty opaque. ?
Here?s a meta-discussion then on transparency: this 53 second commentary tells everything we need to know regarding transparency and end-justifies-the-means politics. Dr. Gruber sums it up in less than a minute. He tried to walk it back later, but no, he was caught telling the truth, it was recorded on video, it will never go away and can never be unsaid. A rare 53 seconds of pure truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 17:23:25 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:23:25 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,
700-million-year-old microbial structures
In-Reply-To: <9769082A-1CFB-402E-A06F-FE2229006760@gmail.com>
References: <9769082A-1CFB-402E-A06F-FE2229006760@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/
> nature19355.html
>
>
> I know it's behind a paywall.
>
> Anyhow, I wonder if a more active search under the ice wouldn't yield
> these kinds of finds faster.
>
?It probably would but the average ice thickness in Greenland is 1.2 miles
and it's 2 miles in places so finding more will be difficult.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 18:11:01 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:11:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
Message-ID: <002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
>?I get impatient when people talk about trivialities like the pay grade of assistants? In contrast Donald won't let us see his tax records and his business relationships are a confusing tangled mess that he makes no effort to untangle for us. And yet it's Clinton who is opaque not Trump. ?
John K Clark ?
Ah, OK I see the disconnect, and how two things are being compared which are so dissimilar:
Trump was playing with his money. Mrs. Clinton was playing with ours.
Trump isn?t breaking any laws: the IRS already has his tax returns. Mrs. Clinton has shown repeated disregard for our laws, with the industrial grade deletion of subpoenaed evidence. She has shown contempt for our laws with that very questionable arrangement with her aide. Unless she can show us a contract with details on what her aide was doing, that isn?t just questionable, it is illegal.
That arrangement gives the appearance that perhaps other countries (where governments durn sure are corrupt) might perhaps possibly view a donation to the Clinton Foundation as a way to get access to the US State Department. Just sayin? (as the g droppin? sayin? goes.) Not that any government anywhere would perhaps think that, or misinterpret it, or that perhaps bad guys from places like {fill in any known corrupt government} might somehow contact an aide who is mysteriously employed in three different places simultaneously might be the way in to our State Department. Or perhaps they did, but just sayin? John. Maybe.
Trump refuses to show us how he was making his money. Mrs. Clinton refuses to show us how she was spending ours.
Easy solution: don?t vote for them.
Hear the footsteps.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 19:26:57 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:26:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] a little more fun
Message-ID:
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Thus, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 19:36:28 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:36:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a little more fun
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:26 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
> Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
> Thus, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
>
> bill w
I first saw a different version of that pattern many years ago:
Nothing is better than fucking.
Masturbation is better than nothing.
Ergo, masturbation is better than fucking.
Hope this doesn't offend anyone.
Regards,
Dan
Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 19:41:07 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:41:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] political truisms
Message-ID:
Irrefutable logic:
The Left is right.
The Right is wrong.
And for the Brits: Labour isn't working
bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 19:51:50 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:51:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, spike wrote:
> *>?>??*I get impatient when people talk about trivialities like the pay
>> grade of assistants? In contrast Donald won't let us see his tax records
>> and his business relationships are a confusing tangled mess that he makes
>> no effort to untangle for us. And yet it's Clinton who is opaque not Trump.
>> ?
>> John K Clark ?
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> Ah, OK I see the disconnect, and how two things are being compared which
> are so dissimilar: Trump was playing with his money. Mrs. Clinton was
> playing with ours.
>
?Exactly, so if President Trump gives preferential treatment to his
business interests he will personally benefit from it but Mrs. Clinton
won't because she has no skin in the game. ?
?> ?
> Trump isn?t breaking any laws:
?I just Googled "Trump" and "broke the law" and got 368,000 results.?
> ?> ?
> the IRS already has his tax returns.
?But we the voters do not have his tax returns. And because of that and
because they are so secret and convoluted if President Trump does give
preferential treatment to his business interests
? we the voters won't know, only he will know, and of course his wife and
kids who will continue to run his business as usual.?
?> ?
> She has shown contempt for our laws with that very questionable
> arrangement with her aide. Unless she can show us a contract with details
> on what her aide was doing, that isn?t just questionable, it is illegal.
?I'll
be damned if I know why but the probability Trump will win has gone up in
recent days, ?
?it's now at about 30%, ?so the danger is approximately the same as putting
not one but two bullets into in revolver, spinning the cylinder at random
putting the gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Perhaps that's why
when I hear details of the work contract of some aid to Hillary that I've
never heard of until a few days ago my mind starts to wander.
> ?> ?
> That arrangement gives the appearance that perhaps other countries (where
> governments durn sure are corrupt) might perhaps possibly view a donation
> to the Clinton Foundation as a way to get access to the US State
> Department.
?Donating money to a political campaign ?
?in the unstated hope of gaining access is not a crime and is not even
considered immoral in most circles, and even less donating money to a
philanthropic foundation to get access. ? However it is illegal to accept
contributions from
foreign government officials
? and it's even illegal to ask for it, but that's exactly what Donald Trump
did: ?
t
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-29/trump-campaign-broke-law-by-soliciting-foreign-donations-complaint-alleges
?> ?
> Trump refuses to show us how he was making his money. Mrs. Clinton
> refuses to show us how she was spending ours.
?As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump, and I
honest to god don't get it.?
?
John K Clark
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 21:33:31 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:33:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] political truisms
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <009901d20498$7d1f9e90$775edbb0$@att.net>
>? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
>?Subject: [ExI] political truisms
>?Irrefutable logic:
>?The Left is right.
>?The Right is wrong.
Ja. The fundamental theorem of algebra is that if A = B and B = C, then A = C.
>?And for the Brits: Labour isn't working. bill w
It?s something I hope will get more air time here: we face a huge problem to which I have yet to see a convincing answer. The value of labor can only decline as technology advances. But there are plenty of brain workers whose value also declines over time. In the USA, the two mainstream parties seem to have opposite views in a sense: one does nothing, the other does the wrong things.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Thu Sep 1 21:51:00 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:51:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
Message-ID: <00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
?>?Exactly, so if President Trump gives preferential treatment to his business interests he will personally benefit from it but Mrs. Clinton won't because she has no skin in the game?
Are we comparing what Trump will do to what Clinton has already done?
>??I just Googled "Trump" and "broke the law" and got 368,000 results.?
Did you read any of them?
?>?I'll be damned if I know why but the probability Trump will win has gone up in recent days, ?it's now at about 30%...
The press is talking about the upcoming email dump from Julian Assange. They have noticed he isn?t a bullshitter and hasn?t ever been caught bluffing.
>? when I hear details of the work contract of some aid to Hillary that I've never heard of until a few days ago my mind starts to wander?
It demonstrates contempt for law. We need elected officials who respect law. Government officials must follow the laws they swear to uphold, to the letter and beyond.
?>? it is illegal to accept contributions from
foreign government officials
? and it's even illegal to ask for it, but that's exactly what Donald Trump did...
The article doesn?t say what public office he was holding at the time, or whether it was an elected office or an appointed one. John, do you know?
?>?As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump.?..John K Clark
Eh, probably about the same. Easy solution: don?t vote for them.
Hear the approaching footsteps.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:39:08 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:39:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:51 PM, spike wrote:
?> ?
> We need elected officials who respect law.
?
What
??
we
? ?
need
? ?
is that
? ?
the elected official who will control the nuclear football not to be crazy
or stupid
?. ?
Donald Trump is both and Hillary Clinton is neither.
? ?
That's all I need to know for her to get my vote, after that
? ?
I don't care if she's John Dillinger's illegitimate love child.
John K Clark
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 22:54:35 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:54:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:51 PM, spike wrote:
?>
>> ?> ?
>> ?As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump
>
>
?> ?
> Eh, probably about the same. Easy solution: don?t vote for them.
>
>
?Spike, we both know that if there were only 2 candidates on the ballot
most people on this list would vote for Trump even though he would be the
most anti-free market president in a century, and I'm sincerely trying to
figure out why. It's just so asymmetrical, we've got existential issues on
the one side and obscure aids who may or may not have filed the proper
government paperwork on the other. And the paperwork wins! I just don't get
it.
John K Clark ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 23:17:16 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:17:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] labor and management was Re: political truisms
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, spike wrote:
>
>
> It?s something I hope will get more air time here: we face a huge problem
> to which I have yet to see a convincing answer. The value of labor can
> only decline as technology advances. But there are plenty of brain workers
> whose value also declines over time. In the USA, the two mainstream
> parties seem to have opposite views in a sense: one does nothing, the other
> does the wrong things.spike
>
> ?Well, I just dunno about labor unions, but I do see that the decline of
them parallels the lowering or stagnation of wages. My very humble opinion
(me? economics? labor? management?) is that we need a better balance of
the two for optimum functioning.
Now what do you call this in math?
Team A beats B, team B beats C, and team C beats A
bill w?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 23:25:18 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:25:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
Message-ID:
As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump, and I honest
to god don't get it.?
?
John K Clark
My sense is the group is that only Rafal is for Trump. The rest think that
Hillary's negatives outweigh the positives (no hate necessarily involved)
and for Trump the negatives FAR outweigh the positives.
Me - I can't see any intelligent person voting for
Trump unless it's a Repub party effect. Or the effect of maybe more taxes
on income from the upper end if Clinton is elected. In other words, a
person voting for himself rather than the country.
Shame on all of you! Cowards! Wimps! Nobody responded to my depiction of
women as female bower birds. Of course the women were too smart to respond
(and maybe you were too).
bill w
bill w
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:51 PM, spike wrote:
>
> ?>
>>> ?> ?
>>> ?As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump
>>
>>
>
> ?> ?
>> Eh, probably about the same. Easy solution: don?t vote for them.
>>
>>
> ?Spike, we both know that if there were only 2 candidates on the ballot
> most people on this list would vote for Trump even though he would be the
> most anti-free market president in a century, and I'm sincerely trying to
> figure out why. It's just so asymmetrical, we've got existential issues on
> the one side and obscure aids who may or may not have filed the proper
> government paperwork on the other. And the paperwork wins! I just don't get
> it.
>
> John K Clark ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Sep 1 23:56:18 2016
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:56:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
Message-ID: <20160901165618.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.11d74ad2ae.wbe@email17.godaddy.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 2 00:02:13 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
Message-ID: <019b01d204ad$42aaaa60$c7ffff20$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 3:55 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:51 PM, spike > wrote:
?>
?> ?
?As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump
?> ?
Eh, probably about the same. Easy solution: don?t vote for them.
?Spike, we both know that if there were only 2 candidates on the ballot most people on this list would vote for Trump even though he would be the most anti-free market president in a century?
There was a really good interview with Gary Johnson recently that might answer this question. The press queried on his views on taxes. He related that in his view, we should replace the income tax with a value-added tax (and so forth) but then added a key phrase that was music to my ears: US presidents don?t do that, the House does.
Naturally the press had no idea what he was talking about (imagine that (because USians tend to think that everything the government does is on the orders of the president (it really really doesn?t work that way (not at all, not even close (by careful design (by guys who knew firsthand what happens when we concentrate power.))))))
The interviewer then inserted a snarky comment that Johnson is really saying: don?t worry about my promises, they won?t pass anyway. Johnson patiently explained that we have a constitution that defines what various branches of government actually do. He isn?t making any claim that he has any significant influence on tax structure; he is the first candidate in a long time to explicitly state that he is running for president, not king, not emperor. Presidents do not make the call on that. Astonishing! The truth!
As I have said repeatedly, presidents shouldn?t make the call on nukes either. It was set up that way so that we can respond quickly in an attack. But? we now have early warning systems and instant communications. The reason we originally set up that system has passed. John, you have made the case that this system will not change, but I argue that it can and probably will: the next president will likely be one that noooobody trusts. If the congress passes a bill to take back that football (and I hope they do) the president has the option of vetoing that bill. However? a determined senate can do it anyway. It requires a 2/3 vote to override a veto. If we wind up with either a crazy or criminal president, the senate will perhaps realize they better take action forthwith. The world becomes a safer place if no one can trigger nuclear war by merely getting pissed off or indicted.
>?and I'm sincerely trying to figure out why. It's just so asymmetrical, we've got existential issues on the one side and obscure aids who may or may not have filed the proper government paperwork on the other. And the paperwork wins! I just don't get it?John K Clark ?
It is more than improper or incomplete paperwork. In contract law. If a SoS enters a contract and does not have everything carefully documented, it is automatic contract fraud. There are no exceptions to government contract law as the rank gets higher: in fact it gets more strict as you go up, because the amounts get bigger. An independent organization had Freedom of Information Act demand that contract, and it comes due in a couple weeks. If the State Department can?t produce that contract, everything changes.
Does that explain those numbers John? Note that the contract has nothing to do with Trump (who has never issued a government contract) nor any particular party, not asking about impact on elections, they are not asking that. It has to do with existing contract law and the question of whether or not it was violated, and if not, hand over the contract, and if so, then what?
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 01:56:17 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:56:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To:
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace
wrote:
>
>
> My sense is the group is that only Rafal is for Trump.
>
### Please do not insult me.
As I mentioned multiple times here, I do not vote.
Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 2 03:21:27 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 20:21:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The who? Foundation
Message-ID: <006201d204c9$18154370$483fca50$@att.net>
>? On Behalf Of natasha at natasha.cc
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
Spike, Right. Don't vote for them.
And don't tell list members what they think. And stop using terms such as "hate".
what happened to extropy>??
Natasha Vita-More, Ph.D.
http://www.natasha.cc
Greetings Extropians,
Especially in extremely sensitive topics, please be very careful about attributions. I think I was scolded for something John Clark wrote, a comment with which I disagree in any case.
{8-\
No worries, life goes on.
I am bowing out of political discussions for the time being however, and will watch and listen carefully in the next few weeks. I do encourage all to do likewise. We have beaten the topic to death and beyond all recognition. It is out of our hands now I fear.
Onward!
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From rahmans at me.com Fri Sep 2 09:48:49 2016
From: rahmans at me.com (Omar Rahman)
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:48:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Nothing to worry about?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki >
> To: ExI chat list >
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Nothing to worry about?
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM, BillK > wrote:
>
> PERC appears to be linked to the Koch brothers.
>>
>> ### If it's linked to the Koch brothers, I am ready to trust them.
>
> Koch brothers are true American heroes, who rose against the Behemoth and
> gave it poke in the eye, earning themselves the undying hatred of leftoids
> everywhere.
It?s nice that such a Mom-n-Pop operation like the Koch brothers had the guts to hire an army of lobbyists to begin poking Washington. Unfortunately, the lobbyists seem to have their aim considerably lower, specifically the area from whence Rafal derives his facts. Interestingly, because Rafal has his head so firmly lodged in his fact generator, and its online analog Breitbart, I?m sure that by timing flow and echo we have a new metric for gauging the convergence of the physical and the digital and thereby the approach of the Singularity. Well done Rafal! Back to the lobbyists, unfortunately instead of the traditional sticks they used something else for their poking. Oh well, at least it rhymes with ?stick?.
This wouldn?t have been so bad if the Koch brothers hadn?t made one more error; corporations are people under US law. Koch Industries is composed of many thousands of hectares of land, processing plants, approximately 100 000 workers, a network of contracts, intellectual property, bank accounts, lawyers and lobbyists. Koch Industries is the Behemoth. And as a perfect Ayn Rand Libertarian behemoth it feels no altruistic impulse so it couldn?t comply with the poking directive and go poke itself. Unfortunately, as a perfect Ayn Rand libertarian behemoth, it found its enlightened self-interest by poking the public and our environmental laws.
Let?s me be clear, something like Koch Industries is as close to an AI as we have. It exists on a scale and time frame beyond human. It doesn?t have its own moral sense/faculty/psychology. For some this may be an ideal but for me it is the clearest explanation why corporations need to be regulated by our citizen?s AI, the government.
>
> Hail the Koch brothers!
Seig?
>
> Rafa?
Omar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 15:05:57 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:05:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
In-Reply-To: <019b01d204ad$42aaaa60$c7ffff20$@att.net>
References:
<017301d202d7$fa369130$eea3b390$@att.net>
<01c301d202ea$63462570$29d27050$@att.net>
<019401d203c9$fd13f8a0$f73be9e0$@att.net>
<035801d20404$c3490ad0$49db2070$@att.net>
<002501d2047c$3356d470$9a047d50$@att.net>
<00bf01d2049a$ee3ee660$cabcb320$@att.net>
<019b01d204ad$42aaaa60$c7ffff20$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, spike wrote:
?> ?
> As I have said repeatedly, presidents shouldn?t make the call on nukes
?And as I have said more than once it makes not one bit of difference if
they should or shouldn't because presidents *DO* make the call on nukes and
they will continue to do so.
> ?> ?
> It was set up that way so that we can respond quickly in an attack. But?
> we now have early warning systems and instant communications. The reason
> we originally set up that system has passed. John, you have made the case
> that this system will not change, but I argue that it can and probably will:
?Probably? Well OK, the possibility that will happen is not zero, it's
greater than that, it's about the same as the possibility that all the air
molecules in the room you're in right now through random motion will
suddenly end up on the other side of the room and you suffocate in
a vacuum. It could happen but probably won't.
> ?> ?
> If the congress passes a bill to take back that football (and I hope they
> do) the president has the option of vetoing that bill. However? a
> determined senate can do it anyway. It requires a 2/3 vote to override a
> veto.
?Spike, if you're willing to stake your life on the possibility of that
happening in the next 4 years then you are one fearless man and should
consider a career change to jumping cars on motorcycles.
?>?
> He
> ?[Johnson] ?
> related that in his view, we should replace the income tax with a
> value-added tax (and so forth) but then added a key phrase that was music
> to my ears: US presidents don?t do that, the House does.
>
But US presidents can veto a tax bill the House passes, and in the real
world we live in a US presidents also has considerable political power to
pressure House members to vote the way he wants, not total power but quite
considerable. ?
>
>> ?>?
>> It's just so asymmetrical, we've got existential issues on the one side
>> and obscure aids who may or may not have filed the proper government
>> paperwork on the other. And the paperwork wins! I just don't get it.
>
>
> > It is more than improper or incomplete paperwork. In contract law.
I still don't consider a contract dispute between an obscure government
employee and her employer to be an existential issue, but never mind, it
you want to talk about contract law lets talk about it. Trump is being sued
in hundreds of separate lawsuits for violating the construction contract he
signed and not paying people what he promised them he would pay:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
Trump is being sued for not living up to the contract he made with
thousands of poor students signed up at his ridiculous Trump "University"
and bilking them out of $40,000,000:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/nyregion/new-york-attorney-generals-suit-against-trump-university-may-proceed-court-rules.html?_r=0
Trump's modeling agency is being sued for violating work contracts and
?fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of U.S. immigration and labor
laws":
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/09/fate-lawsuit-brought-trump-model-decided-month.html
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 2 16:00:55 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 09:00:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
Message-ID: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
>? On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, spike > wrote:
?> >?? presidents shouldn?t make the call on nukes
?>? it makes not one bit of difference if they should or shouldn't because presidents DO make the call on nukes and they will continue to do so? John K Clark
John suppose the person who wins the election (we are told he or she won) is distrusted by the current administration (and congress (and most of the rest of us (not mentioning any names (don?t need to.))))
Then the lame-duck congress drafts a bill like the old stadium cheer: Hey hey whaddya say, let?s go take that ball away? Lame duck congress passes it, lame duck president signs it, it?s not just a suggestion, it?s the law. Football is passed by current lame-duck president over to where it should have been to start with, a couple months, weeks, days, hours or even minutes before inauguration, new suspect is sworn into office without ever getting the launch codes. Risk of nuclear single-point failure averted, done. The commies follow suit. Then we can officially declare that the cold war is over, the entire planet breathes a long-delayed sigh of relief.
John there is no need to be a nattering nabob of negativism. The above is an easily-imagined scenario. There is plenty of light at the end of this dark tunnel.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 18:57:47 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:57:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, spike wrote:
> >it makes not one bit of difference if they should or shouldn't because
>> presidents DO make the call on nukes and they will continue to do so? John
>> K Clark
>
>
> ?> ?
> John suppose the person who wins the election (we are told he or she won)
> is distrusted by the current administration (and congress (and most of the
> rest of us (not mentioning any names (don?t need to.))))
> Then the lame-duck congress drafts a bill like the old stadium cheer: Hey
> hey whaddya say, let?s go take that ball away? Lame duck congress passes
> it,
>
?Passed by a congress where both houses are controlled by Republicans who
endorse Trump and where each one is trying to convince voters that they are
tougher on defence issues than anyone else in government? Pigs will fly
first. Even Republicans who are now lukewarm to him (because they don't
think he will win) ?will change their tune and sing his praises if the
unexpected happens and voters go for his bullshit and he becomes President.
> ?> ?
> There is plenty of light at the end of this dark tunnel.
>
?Yes but it turns out the light is coming from the headlight ?of a diesel
locomotive
heading straight for you .?
On a separate matter, I looked at the title of your post and wondered if
you too were an Isaac Asimov fan.
? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 19:31:51 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:31:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
Message-ID:
As John points out, the odds of Congress doing what you propose are
laughably tiny...
On Sep 2, 2016 9:16 AM, "spike" wrote:
> The commies follow suit.
...but this is even more so.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Fri Sep 2 20:17:53 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:17:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To:
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
Message-ID: <002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:58 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] foundation and empire
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, spike > wrote:
>it makes not one bit of difference if they should or shouldn't because presidents DO make the call on nukes and they will continue to do so? John K Clark
?> ?>?John suppose the person who wins the election (we are told he or she won) is distrusted by the current administration (and congress (and most of the rest of us (not mentioning any names (don?t need to.))))
Then the lame-duck congress drafts a bill like the old stadium cheer: Hey hey whaddya say, let?s go take that ball away? Lame duck congress passes it,
?>?Passed by a congress where both houses?and where each one is trying to convince voters that they are tougher on defence issues than anyone else in government? Pigs will fly first?
Keep in mind that this might be our ooooonnne and only chance, our one chance to solve a problem which has been there since the whole notion of the executive branch controlling the nukes first evolved. We know we have a single-point failure there, and we know the results would be catastrophic. We can estimate the risk with each new administration, but risk accumulates. Unless this is fixed, eventually nukes will fly for reasons such as someone lost their temper, or were being threatened (with something more mundane than missiles.)
If congress realizes that this is an opportunity that may never be seen again, ever, and realize that the whole world becomes safer if about five guys in congress must authorize any attack, and this might be the one time when a new president goes in with the level of distrust, bipartisan distrust as the next one will have? If congress will recognize this is our oooonnnne chaaaance to make safe a very dangerous situation, then acts on it, this will fly before pigs do.
It?s our one chance, this year. This is the year when both major parties pretty much distrust their own candidate, and durn sure distrust the other one. One chance, one.
>?On a separate matter, I looked at the title of your post and wondered if you too were an Isaac Asimov fan? John K Clark?
Of course. Asimov was brilliant. We think of him as a terrific Sci-fi writer, but in my view his most brilliant work was the non-fiction essays he wrote as a monthly column for Fact and Science Fiction magazine, which I read in my misspent youth after I finished with the latest National Geographic (for the articles you know, only the articles.) That science non-fiction stuff was terrific. I bought the bound copies and read all of them after college was finished. Brilliant stuff.
Were Asimov among us today, he would relate to my One Chance argument I make above. Congress has nothing to lose, and Obama has everything to gain if he signs off on that deal. Reason: it would be a real and lasting legacy. Without that, he has a goose egg as soon as that system fails, that bill we had to hurry up and pass to find out what is in it. When that eventually collapses, he has no legacy at all that I can tell. But if he managed to solve that huge problem, that single point failure which threatens the planet, he would be remembered for that. Historians will look kindly on it.
Consider Asimov?s history non-fiction approach. That was brilliant too, but because he didn?t interpret history as this army defeated that army and the other thing. He recognized that it was all about technology, how this technology defeated that technology, not which band of apes defeated which other. Brilliant stuff, simple enough for a child to understand, and I can give you a good example of one who does.
Mental exercise in the spirit of Asimov: list all the presidential administrations you know (no looking up anything, put your OK Google phone away) and give a legacy in one or two words if possible, or a short phrase. Doesn?t have to be something good, just the most memorable with the most lasting repercussions or most well-known. Examples, Eisenhower: interstate highway system. Nixon: Watergate. WJClinton: Monica. Ja we know these guys did other things, but these are what they are remembered for. Repeat for the current administration please. Doesn?t want it to be Benghazi or a health system that eventually went away. But if he had instead: prevented nuclear war, well that?s a pretty damn good lasting legacy, ja? That?s what I would be doing right now in that seat, and try to get it through before the election if possible.
Then we really don?t need to tie ourselves in knots like we have been and have a virtual civil war over a job that really isn?t all that powerful; it wouldn?t much matter. We wouldn?t have billions of dollars spent on getting a job that pays a couple hundred thousand. It wouldn?t matter all that much who had that office.
This is our one chance John, one.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From rex at nosyntax.net Fri Sep 2 20:17:07 2016
From: rex at nosyntax.net (rex)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:17:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] political truisms
In-Reply-To: <009901d20498$7d1f9e90$775edbb0$@att.net>
References:
<009901d20498$7d1f9e90$775edbb0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20160902201707.GB8087@nosyntax.net>
spike [2016-09-01 14:48]:
> ?
>
> ?
>
> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
>
> >?Subject: [ExI] political truisms
>
> ?
>
> >?Irrefutable logic:
>
> ?
>
> >?The Left is right.
>
> ?
>
> >?The Right is wrong.
>
> ?
>
> Ja.? The fundamental theorem of algebra is that if A = B and B = C, then A
> = C.
No. That's the transitive property of equality. If we choose "beats" for "=", then
we know it's not always true for sports teams.
The fundamental theorem of algebra is a very different thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_algebra
From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 21:35:11 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:35:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To: <002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
<002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Sep 2, 2016 1:19 PM, "spike" wrote:
> If congress will recognize this is our oooonnnne chaaaance to make safe a
very dangerous situation, then acts on it, this will fly before pigs do.
They won't. Likewise, water will remain wet.
Wishing is irrelevant here: there are fundamental problems that would need
to be addressed before Congress would even consider such a thing. (For
example, getting them to actually care, as opposed to just paying lip
service. For another, getting them to realize that an American nuclear
first strike really is something that Trump might actually attempt, even
with the evidence Trump has provided. And then there are the ones who
assume Clinton has basically already won and won't first strike.) Your
proposal fails to acknowledge that said barriers even exist, let alone how
to solve them.
Can we please keep discussion to things that are even remotely possible?
For instance, given the things Clinton is expected to do in office, how
might we take advantage of those to boost public adoption technologies to
render certain forms of corruption impossible?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 23:06:53 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:06:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To: <002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
<002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:17 PM, spike wrote:
?> ?
> Were Asimov among us today, he would relate to my One Chance argument I
> make above.
?
I'm sure he would because Asimov was logical
?.?
I relate to it too because betting civilization and perhaps the entire
human species on the sanity of just one person is scary, but the trouble is
logical people are rare
?. ?I
t's even rarer for one of them to become an American politician; he'd
certainly have to carefully hide his disreputable logical tendencies from
the voters to have any hope of being elected. There is a 0% chance congress
doing what you suggest. And if there were such a thing as a negative
probability that's the chance I'd give to Vladimir Putin
? ?deciding to
give
?
up control of his nuclear weapons. It won't happen. So all a logical voter
can do is vote for the least crazy candidate that has a chance of winning,
and this year it's obvious which one that is.
Like you I want a better choice but as the Rolling Stones said in their
song used without permission at the Republican convention,
? ?
you can't always get what you want. Trump keeps
?using?
the song
? ?in his
nuremberg rallies
? ?
despite the Stones protests
;?
?
Mick Jagger
? ?
commented "I can't get no satisfaction".
?John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 3 00:06:32 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:06:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To:
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
<002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
Message-ID: <005b01d20577$07c60230$17520690$@att.net>
>? Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] foundation and empire
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:17 PM, spike > wrote:
?> ?>?.Were Asimov among us today, he would relate to my One Chance argument I make above.
?
>?I'm sure he would because Asimov was logical?
Understatement. He was logical and creative at the same time while being mind-blowing smart. Such a combination, so seldom seen. Oh that humanity could have a thousand like him, a million.
>? betting civilization and perhaps the entire human species on the sanity of just one person is scary?
Way beyond scary, it feels like collective insanity to keep that system in place when we don?t need to anymore. We can make the system reliable enough and fire in response to an attack if we have about five people with veto power over any launch, one from each house from each of the mainstream parties and the supreme court chief justice. It could be set to where if any of the five are unresponsive or already perished such as from having been slain or nuked, it is still possible to fire rockets (so we wouldn?t introduce any risk of inability to respond to attack.)
If a sitting president tried to fire a first strike illegitimately, he or she would need to slay all five of those with a finger on the safety switch.
I would think congress would want to have the option of stopping a first strike.
Why would they not want that?
And if an outgoing president was a pacifist and wanted an actual legacy, why would not he sign that?
>?There is a 0% chance congress doing what you suggest?
No I don?t want to bet, but the probability is non-zero. I don?t see why this isn?t a common bumper sticker in the one election year when noooobody will display either of the mainstream parties: Secure the Nukes!
This weird cycle I have seen a full order of magnitude more Sanders stickers and a full order of magnitude more Johnson/Weld stickers than I have seen for the two mainstream candidates combined. That is very very odd. The people apparently hold the two mainstreamers in disdain and distrust (imagine that) and yet the real negative campaigning hasn?t even started yet. We haven?t seen either of Assange?s planned releases. The debates haven?t been held yet, and we can just imagine what those two are going to say to each other. I do look forward to that with eager anticipation.
This is a great window of opportunity to secure the nukes, a window which will likely close forever if we pass up this one golden chance to get that done once and for all. This is such a rare combination: a pacifist termed-out lame duck president with no apparent legacy, coupled with a choice of hawkish successors, both widely distrusted with power. Has that ever happened before?
>?And if there were such a thing as a negative probability that's the chance I'd give to Vladimir Putin ?deciding to give up control of his nuclear weapons? John K Clark?
I come from the point of view of one who watched in absolute astonishment as a bunch of commies battered down the Berlin Wall from their side.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 00:36:44 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:36:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To: <005b01d20577$07c60230$17520690$@att.net>
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
<002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
<005b01d20577$07c60230$17520690$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Sep 2, 2016 5:23 PM, "spike" wrote:
> >? Behalf Of John Clark
> >?There is a 0% chance congress doing what you suggest?
>
> No I don?t want to bet, but the probability is non-zero.
It is as close to zero as can be measured.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 01:19:40 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 21:19:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nothing to worry about?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Omar Rahman wrote:
>
>
> Seig?
>
### For your convenience, the correct spelling of the party greeting is
"Sieg heil!".
I know I must be doing something right when my minor remarks trigger
formless left-winger ire punctuated by NSDAP references.
Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 01:35:51 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 21:35:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] foundation and empire
In-Reply-To:
References: <009e01d20533$30935a80$91ba0f80$@att.net>
<002c01d20557$16889870$4399c950$@att.net>
Message-ID:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> Can we please keep discussion to things that are even remotely possible?
> For instance, given the things Clinton is expected to do in office, how
> might we take advantage of those to boost public adoption technologies to
> render certain forms of corruption impossible?
>
### If the stupid party loses control of the congress, there is a
significant risk of many forms of corruption becoming possible, terminally
entrenched and widespread, given one-party control of two of the three
branches. If the stupids keep the congress, there may be a stalemate, which
is the best we can hope for. Will the public wake up and achieve some feats
of self-defense against the Behemoth? Dunno, maybe.
Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 16:36:49 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 12:36:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] A Working Quantum Computer by 2017?
Message-ID:
?Add quantum computers to the list of things that could create a
singularity. Google now thinks that as early as the end of next year they
will have a working 50 Qubit quantum computer that can achieves something
they call "quantum supremacy", it means solving a problem that no existing
conventional computer can. This is much earlier than anybody thought just 5
years ago. The problem they're focusing on is calculating how a network of
quantum circuits behaves. The difficulty of solving the network problem
increases exponentially with the number of circuits, a smartphone can
calculate what a 6 x 4 grid will do, to figure out a 6 x 7 grid Google
needed one of the world's largest supercomputers with 10,000 times the
power of a high end PC. To calculate what a 7 x 7 grid will do is beyond
existing technology, you'd need a conventional computer with twice the
memory of the world's largest supercomputer, but a 50 Qubit quantum
computer could solve it easily. And the technique Google is using seems to
be scalable, no need to stop at 50 Qubits.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130894-000-revealed-googles-plan-for-quantum-computer-supremacy/
? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 16:58:37 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:58:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
Message-ID:
I know that if you view things a certain way, nearly everything is a
combination of many things and is improbable.
But I am looking for things that have happened to you that were really
memorable for improbability, like mine:
We were sitting in the end zone in Birmingham, Alabama, watching the local
semipro team play Hawaii. It was cold and raining and we were all under a
plastic sheet, rather miserable, and the home team hadn't done much.
Our team was at the other end of the field at the 5 yard line coming out
way. For the first and only time I ever stood up and yelled something; I
said "What we need right now is a 95 yard touchdown pass."
It happened on the next play. The whole end zone looked at me, and later
in the game called to me to call for another one.
Not only do 95 yard plays happen very seldomly, how about just after I
called it? I, who never stood up and said anything.
Have you had any type of highly improbable event happen to you where you
were involved in some way, not just a spectator? (Yeah, kinda Reader's
Digest kind of thing.)
One more: as my wife and I were driving along a back road I saw a group of
vultures up ahead and slowed down as the group flew off to the right. Only
one bird flew left but that was enough to bust my windshield, sending glass
all the way to the back window.
Not improbable? One year later in another car my wife was driving along
the same road with me and a vulture hit her windshield in the same place.
The first time I learned not to put a used windshield in a car by myself.
Got it in, but it took all day and I never got the trim in.
Once, not improbable. Twice?
bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 3 17:49:49 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 10:49:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <003f01d2060b$9206ece0$b614c6a0$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 9:59 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
>? I said "What we need right now is a 95 yard touchdown pass." It happened on the next play. The whole end zone looked at me, and later in the game called to me to call for another one?
He?s GOD! they shouted in unison, as they fell before him in humble adoration.
Alternative: you have the FORCE BillW. You are the droid we are looking for.
>?Have you had any type of highly improbable event happen to you where you were involved in some way, not just a spectator? (Yeah, kinda Reader's Digest kind of thing.)?
If this doesn?t generate some welcome fun lighthearted discussion, I don?t know what will.
>?One more: as my wife and I were driving along a back road I saw a group of vultures up ahead and slowed down as the group flew off to the right. Only one bird flew left but that was enough to bust my windshield, sending glass all the way to the back window?Not improbable? One year later in another car my wife was driving along the same road with me and a vulture hit her windshield in the same place?bill w
Turn in the road, driver and beast have a difficult time seeing each other, driver smites and slays beast with Detroit, vultures come in for lunch regularly in that spot. Notice how vultures feed: they surround their lunch, give each other space if possible. They get startled by suddenly approaching growling thing which by their instinct matches a hungry lion, they fly away, but vultures and big cumbersome things and require some runway with a relatively low climb rate and low turning ability.
Result: that spot is a frequent meeting place between Detroits and the hapless local fauna, the feathered scavengers? grow big and strong devouring slain beasts at that spot. Then, any time a Detroit comes suddenly into view, the vultures fly away from their meal, at least one of which needs to come in your general direction to have sufficient clear runway, Detroit smites scavenger, broken windshield, revolting vulture guts spewed upon driver and passenger. If you continue to drive that road, eventually good chance you will sacrifice a third windshield. Coincidental indeed, but not so astonishing. Suggest slowing and honking as you approach Bend in the Road vulture restaurant henceforth.
Back to calling upon your team to hurl a winning pass sir. That was impressive.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 3 19:33:36 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 12:33:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] lighthearted banter for a long weekend on becoming jeeves.
was RE: for fun - statistical improbabilities
Message-ID: <009901d2061a$12209fd0$3661df70$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 10:50 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Re: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 9:59 AM
To: ExI chat list >
Subject: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
>>? I said "What we need right now is a 95 yard touchdown pass." It happened on the next play. The whole end zone looked at me, and later in the game called to me to call for another one?
>?He?s GOD! they shouted in unison, as they fell before him in humble adoration. Alternative: you have the FORCE BillW. You are the droid we are looking for? spike
I retract my earlier comment BillW; you are the football Moses. When the Israelis went out to fight the Amalekites (Palestinians) the uncircumcised savages were scoring repeatedly until Moses stood and held up his hands, at which time the Israelis scored. Read it for yourself, Exodus Chapter 17:
10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
12 But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
That whole British understated ?discomfited?with the edge of the sword? comment, heh, the bible translators 400 yrs ago had to know that was funny. I wouldn?t be at all surprised if Shakespeare wrote that (he is thought to have perhaps been an uncredited contributor to the King James version (a contention I find plausible (evidence supplied on request.)))
A kind offlist interlocutor complimented me on my newfound loquacious erudition, compelling me to offer an explanation.
>From a person?s favorite movies, books and TV, much can be ascertained about that personality. The very best television I have ever seen is the Laurie and Fry version of PG Wodehouse? Jeeves and Wooster, a British comedy made in 1990 thru 1993, a mere 23 episodes, priceless jewels all, the very best comedy I have ever seen on TV without exception. My bride and I viewed them when they were being made and loved them. We bought the series and have viewed them and enjoyed them repeatedly over the years. It isn?t Monty Python slapstick style humor, but rather concepty social commentaryey parodyey humor.
One must concentrate for a full 40 minutes to get it, but it is multi-level humor with a message, paradoxical jokes within jokes. Brilliant stuff! If you see what Laurie and Fry do with it, also notice the craftsmanship in the acting, the elaborate sets (clearly they spend skerjillions of dollars on these episodes, getting all those flawless 1930s cars, the costumes, those stately English castles and vast estates, all of it.) They managed to stay very true to the message and humor of Wodehouse, Britain?s answer to our Mark Twain. I can anticipate newcomers commenting that it is a show about nothing, but if you consider the message beneath the surface Drone?s Club silliness, you understand why England changed so much, why it works the way it does today, and perhaps even gain insight into why the Iranian Revolution happened (for they had a similarly structured society at that time to England only worse, and suffered similar consequences, only worse.)
I think you can find the episodes on YouTube, or your local library probably has them. If you haven?t viewed those, it is worth your 40 minutes to enjoy one or more. Or all of them, if you are a Jeeves and Wooster virgin.
My bride and I are viewing that series for about the fifth time and rolling in laughter, and marveling anew at the impeccable craftsmanship in the creation of these episodes. Watch for obvious mistakes, or poor acting anywhere: I haven?t found it, not a single stray modern car or passing aircraft in the background, not even the shadow of a microphone boom or poor sound quality.
Jeeves and Wooster veteran commentary welcome here.
Every time I view these masterpieces I have a renewed aspiration: to one day grow up to be Jeeves. For now, I must content myself with the futile struggle to merely be like Jeeves while perhaps more resembling Wooster. But my utmost ambition is to become Jeeves.
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 20:39:30 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 16:39:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] A room temperature quantum computer?
Message-ID:
?To make a quantum computer using spin up and and spin down electrons
they'd have to remain in a state of quantum entanglement, for at least 100
nanoseconds, in the July 18 2016 Nature Communications Balint Nafradi et
al report they have achieved 175 nanoseconds, and they did it at 300K, room
temperature. This is 100 times better than the previous record using exotic
graphene, and the material used was pretty cheap and mundane, the ash from
burned mothballs.
if you need to cool things down to 1/1000 of a degree above absolute zero
you're probably never going to have a quantum computer at home, but if you
could make one that would work at room temperature....
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12232
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 21:19:42 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 17:19:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nobody's posted about the Hillary interview yet?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I'm very surprised nobody (such as Spike ;) ) has posted about yesterday's
release on Hillary. I've been planning to vote for her and still probably
will but unless you think she's completely inept (she's not,) then this is
incontrovertible that she lied a lot and committed perjury. The legalese
she's using is only used when someone needs to hide the truth--it's
straight out of a lawyer's mouth, one who I'm sure is very well paid.
Trump is going to get a huge poll bump and I guarantee you that the
Russians are holding the very worst stuff for right before the election.
This is really bad stuff and now it's really undeniable. I'd like to vote
for Johnson just because he's like a normal sensible presidential candidate
we'd have in any other election year that wasn't an apocalyptic
clusterfuck. But I'll still probably vote for Hillary...at least until
worse revelations come out.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From spike66 at att.net Sat Sep 3 22:00:27 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 15:00:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nobody's posted about the Hillary interview yet?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <007c01d2062e$94e762a0$beb627e0$@att.net>
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 2:20 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] Nobody's posted about the Hillary interview yet?
I'm very surprised nobody (such as Spike ;) ) has posted about yesterday's release on Hillary?
Will, I saw little need for my commenting on it. There is no law against senility. I don?t mind if we elect a senile president. We had at least one before, nothing went seriously wrong. I can even see an advantage: it would motivate those who know about it to take the football before the inauguration.
Your comment suggests I have something personal against any particular candidate. It isn?t that. I do have a big lotta heartburn against electing someone to high office who disregards law: that?s just too dangerous.
If that person did it from senility or concussion, well OK fine, let?s elect a senile president. Not one which disregards law, but senility is legal, moral and ethical. If we go down that road, we get what we deserve. But first, let?s get that football back where it belongs, shall we?
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 22:52:33 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 17:52:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] lighthearted banter for a long weekend on becoming
jeeves. was RE: for fun - statistical improbabilities
In-Reply-To: <009901d2061a$12209fd0$3661df70$@att.net>
References: <009901d2061a$12209fd0$3661df70$@att.net>
Message-ID:
The very best television I have ever seen is the Laurie and Fry version of
PG Wodehouse? Jeeves and Wooster, a British comedy made in 1990 thru 1993,
a mere 23 episodes, priceless jewels all spike
Now as long as we are into TV, here's my all time favorite comedy series
(actually I will say the best thing ever on TV); Northern Exposure. Every
character gets a plot now and then - only two or three real stars (none of
which had a great career afterwards - strange). I won't give commentary
like Spike but here's a few adjectives: quirky, satirical, intelligent!,
laugh out loud funny - great writing, great characters, great plots.
One example suffices for a quirky plot: people having other people's
dreams and everyone at the bar trying to figure out whose it was.
Available at Amazon - (expensive compared to Jeeves and Wooster which is
under $30 for 8 dvds on eBay.)
Maybe I do look a bit like Charlton Heston.
bill w
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 2:33 PM, spike wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *spike
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 03, 2016 10:50 AM
> *To:* 'ExI chat list'
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *William Flynn
> Wallace
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 03, 2016 9:59 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list
> *Subject:* [ExI] for fun - statistical improbabilities
>
>
>
> >>? I said "What we need right now is a 95 yard touchdown pass." It
> happened on the next play. The whole end zone looked at me, and later in
> the game called to me to call for another one?
>
>
>
> >?He?s GOD! they shouted in unison, as they fell before him in humble
> adoration. Alternative: you have the FORCE BillW. You are the droid we
> are looking for? spike
>
>
>
>
>
> I retract my earlier comment BillW; you are the football Moses. When the
> Israelis went out to fight the Amalekites (Palestinians) the uncircumcised
> savages were scoring repeatedly until Moses stood and held up his hands, at
> which time the Israelis scored. Read it for yourself, Exodus Chapter 17:
>
>
>
> *10 *So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and
> Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
>
> *11 *And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel
> prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
>
> *12 *But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under
> him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on
> the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady
> until the going down of the sun.
>
> *13 *And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the
> sword.
>
>
>
> That whole British understated ?discomfited?with the edge of the sword?
> comment, heh, the bible translators 400 yrs ago had to know that was
> funny. I wouldn?t be at all surprised if Shakespeare wrote that (he is
> thought to have perhaps been an uncredited contributor to the King James
> version (a contention I find plausible (evidence supplied on request.)))
>
>
>
> A kind offlist interlocutor complimented me on my newfound loquacious
> erudition, compelling me to offer an explanation.
>
>
>
> From a person?s favorite movies, books and TV, much can be ascertained
> about that personality. The very best television I have ever seen is the
> Laurie and Fry version of PG Wodehouse? Jeeves and Wooster, a British
> comedy made in 1990 thru 1993, a mere 23 episodes, priceless jewels all,
> the very best comedy I have ever seen on TV without exception. My bride
> and I viewed them when they were being made and loved them. We bought the
> series and have viewed them and enjoyed them repeatedly over the years. It
> isn?t Monty Python slapstick style humor, but rather concepty social
> commentaryey parodyey humor.
>
>
>
> One must concentrate for a full 40 minutes to get it, but it is
> multi-level humor with a message, paradoxical jokes within jokes.
> Brilliant stuff! If you see what Laurie and Fry do with it, also notice
> the craftsmanship in the acting, the elaborate sets (clearly they spend
> skerjillions of dollars on these episodes, getting all those flawless 1930s
> cars, the costumes, those stately English castles and vast estates, all of
> it.) They managed to stay very true to the message and humor of
> Wodehouse, Britain?s answer to our Mark Twain. I can anticipate newcomers
> commenting that it is a show about nothing, but if you consider the message
> beneath the surface Drone?s Club silliness, you understand why England
> changed so much, why it works the way it does today, and perhaps even gain
> insight into why the Iranian Revolution happened (for they had a similarly
> structured society at that time to England only worse, and suffered similar
> consequences, only worse.)
>
>
>
> I think you can find the episodes on YouTube, or your local library
> probably has them. If you haven?t viewed those, it is worth your 40
> minutes to enjoy one or more. Or all of them, if you are a Jeeves and
> Wooster virgin.
>
>
>
> My bride and I are viewing that series for about the fifth time and
> rolling in laughter, and marveling anew at the impeccable craftsmanship in
> the creation of these episodes. Watch for obvious mistakes, or poor acting
> anywhere: I haven?t found it, not a single stray modern car or passing
> aircraft in the background, not even the shadow of a microphone boom or
> poor sound quality.
>
>
>
> Jeeves and Wooster veteran commentary welcome here.
>
>
>
> Every time I view these masterpieces I have a renewed aspiration: to one
> day grow up to be Jeeves. For now, I must content myself with the futile
> struggle to merely be like Jeeves while perhaps more resembling Wooster.
> But my utmost ambition is to become Jeeves.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 23:01:47 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 19:01:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nobody's posted about the Hillary interview yet?
In-Reply-To: <007c01d2062e$94e762a0$beb627e0$@att.net>
References: